The Nanavati Commission, probing the 2002 post-Godhra riots, today rejected an application challenging the cross-examination of Gujarat IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt, saying it was devoid of merits.
The application was filed by Jamiat-Ulma-E-Hind (JUH) on May 25. JUH had contended that Bhatt cannot be cross- examined as he was summoned by the two-member panel by exercising power under Section 5 (read with Section 4) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, which means that he was called as an informer and not as a witness.
It had further contended that the procedure followed by the commission in allowing the cross-examination of Bhatt, who has made serious allegations against Chief Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the riots, was contrary to the provisions of Commission of Inquiry Act.
On this basis, JUH had asked the commission to strike off from its record the cross-examination of Bhatt till now and not allow his further cross-examination.
“If questions are asked to Bhatt by the Commission or the state with a view to test his believability or truthfulness about the allegations, it cannot be said that the said procedure adopted by the Commission is contrary to the provision to the Commission of Inquiry Act,” the panel stated.
“This application made by the Jamiat does not appear to be bona fide and it is also devoid of merits. Therefore, it is rejected,” it stated.
The panel said it was difficult to appreciate the objection raised to further questioning of Bhatt who has already answered questions put to him by the commission, Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM), Congress party and the Central Relief Committee (CRC). (More) PTI PB PD RSY
Source: MSN
Haren Pandya muder case has exposed the tremendous psychological pressure upon lower judiciary. The free and fair trial was in question as known by now. Following factors are likely to influence the judicial conscience.
1. Plantation of terror theory and Application of Draconian Law of ‘Pota. ‘ by investigating agency.
2. Misuse of section 268 of Cr.P. C. against public trial and scrutiny ( Trial in the Jail ).
3. Protection under Z-plus security to the Judicial officer which instils continuous fear of life and limb for him/her and family.
4. The basic notion of Public Prosecutor always performing patriotic duty.
5. Holistic approach towards Prosecution evidences mainly based on confessions.
6. The concept that the Defence is always anti national, hence, disbelieved in Toto.
7. Strong public opinion built by the State and vernacular paid news media.
The outcome of such system is the verdict which may be termed as no less than the act of ‘ judicial terror ‘ which is quickly rewarded by promotions without testing the probity and integrity and judicial conscience of the delinquent Judge by the Highest Judiciary.